Among gynecologic malignancies, ovarian cancer accounts for the highest tumor-related mortality in women in the United States (Jemal et al., 2005). It is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in women in the U.S. (Menon et al., 2005). The American Cancer Society estimated a total of 22,220 new cases in 2005 and attributed 16,210 deaths to the disease (Bonome et al., 2005). For the past 30 years, the statistics have remained largely the same—the majority of women who develop ovarian cancer will die of this disease (Chambers and Vanderhyden, 2006). The disease carries a 1:70 lifetime risk and a mortality rate of >60% (Chambers and Vanderhyden, 2006). The high mortality rate is due to the difficulties with the early detection of ovarian cancer when the malignancy has already spread beyond the ovary. Indeed, >80% of patients are diagnosed with advanced staged disease (stage III or IV) (Bonome et al., 2005). These patients have a poor prognosis that is reflected in <45% 5-year survival rate, although 80% to 90% will initially respond to chemotherapy (Berek et al., 2000). This increased success compared to 20% 5-year survival rate years earlier is, at least in part, due to the ability to optimally debulk tumor tissue when it is confined to the ovaries, which is a significant prognostic factor for ovarian cancer (Bristow R. E., 2000; Brown et al., 2004). In patients who are diagnosed with early disease (stage I), the 5-yr survival ranges from >90 (Chambers and Vanderhyden, 2006).
Ovarian cancer comprises a heterogeneous group of tumors that are derived from the surface epithelium of the ovary or from surface inclusions. They are classified into serous, mucinous, endometrioid, clear cell, and Brenner (transitional) types corresponding to the different types of epithelia in the organs of the female reproductive tract (Shih and Kurman, 2005). Of these, serous tumors account for ˜60% of the ovarian cancer cases diagnosed. Each histologic subcategory is further divided into three groups: benign, intermediate (borderline tumor or low malignancy potential (LMP)), and malignant, reflecting their clinical behavior (Seidman et al., 2002). LMP represents 10% to 15% of tumors diagnosed as serous and is a conundrum as they display atypical nuclear structure and metastatic behavior, yet they are considerably less aggressive than high-grade serous tumors. The 5-year survival for patients with LMP tumors is 95% in contrast to a <45% survival for advanced high-grade disease over the same period (Berek et al., 2000).
Presently, the diagnosis of ovarian cancer is accomplished, in part, through routine analysis of the medical history of patients and by performing physical, ultrasound and x-ray examinations, and hematological screening. Two alternative strategies have been reported for early hematological detection of serum biomarkers. One approach is analysis of serum samples by mass spectrometry to find proteins or protein fragments of unknown identity that detects the presence or absence of cancer (Mor et al., 2005; Kozak et al., 2003). However, this strategy is expensive and not broadly available. Alternatively, the presence or absence of known proteins/peptides in the serum is being detected using antibody microarrays, ELISA, or other similar approaches. Serum testing for a protein biomarker called CA-125 (cancer antigen-125) has long been widely performed as a marker for ovarian cancer. However, although ovarian cancer cells may produce an excess of these protein molecules, there are some other cancers, including cancer of the fallopian tube or endometrial cancer (cancer of the lining of the uterus), 60% of people with pancreatic cancer, and 20%-25% of people with other malignancies with elevated levels of CA-125. The CA-125 test only returns a true positive result for about 50% of Stage I ovarian cancer patients and has a 80% chance of returning true positive results from stage II, III, and IV ovarian cancer patients. The other 20% of ovarian cancer patients do not show any increase in CA-125 concentrations. In addition, an elevated CA-125 test may indicate other benign activity not associated with cancer, such as menstruation, pregnancy, or endometriosis. Consequently, this test has very limited clinical application for the detection of early stage disease when it is still treatable, exhibiting a positive predictive value (PPV) of <10%. Even with the addition of ultrasound screening to CA-125, the PPV only improves to around 20% (Kozak et al., 2003). Thus, this test is not an effective screening test.
Despite improved knowledge of the etiology of the disease, aggressive cytoreductive surgery, and modern combination chemotherapy, there has been only little change in mortality. Poor outcomes have been attributed to (1) lack of adequate screening tests for early disease detection in combination with only subtle presentation of symptoms at this stage—diagnosis is frequently being made only after progression to later stages, at which point the peritoneal dissemination of the cancer limits effective treatment and (2) the frequent development of resistance to standard chemotherapeutic strategies limiting improvement in the 5-year survival rate of patients. The initial chemotherapy regimen for ovarian cancer includes the combination of carboplatin (Paraplatin) and paclitaxel (taxol). Years of clinical trials have proved this combination to be most effective after effective surgery—reduces tumor volume in about 80% of the women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer and 40% to 50% will have complete regression—but studies continue to look for ways to improve patient response. Recent abdominal infusion of chemotherapeutics to target hard-to-reach cells in combination with intravenous delivery has increased the effectiveness. However, severe side effects often lead to an incomplete course of treatment. Some other chemotherapeutic agents include doxorubicin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, bleomycin, etoposide, vinblastine, topotecan hydrochloride, ifosfamide, 5-fluorouracil and melphalan. More recently, clinical trials have demonstrated that intraperitoneal administration of cisplatin confers a survival advantage compared to systemic intravenous chemotherapy (Cannistra and McGuire, 2007). The excellent survival rates for women with early stage disease receiving chemotherapy provide a strong rationale for research efforts to develop strategies to improve the detection of ovarian cancer. Furthermore, the discovery of new ovarian cancer-related biomarkers will lead to the development of more effective therapeutic strategies with minimal side effects for the future treatment of ovarian cancer.
Notwithstanding these recent advances in the understanding and the treatment for ovarian cancer, the use of chemotherapy is invariably associated with severe adverse reactions, which limit their use. Consequently, the need for more specific strategies such as combining antigen tissue specificity with the selectivity of monoclonal antibodies should permit a significant reduction in off-target-associated side effects. The use of monoclonal antibodies for the therapy of ovarian cancer is beginning to emerge with an increasing number of ongoing clinical trials (Oei et al., 2008; Nicodemus and berek, 2005). Most of these trials have examined the use of monoclonal antibodies conjugated to radioisotopes, such as yttrium-90, or antibodies that target tumor antigens already identified in other cancer types. An example of this is the use of bevacizumab, which targets vascular endothelial growth factor (Burger, 2007). There are very few ovarian cancer specific antigens that are currently under investigation as therapeutic targets for monoclonal antibodies. Some examples include the use of a protein termed B7-H4 (Simon et al., 2006) and more recently folate receptor-alpha (Ebel et al., 2007), the latter of which has recently entered Phase II clinical trials.
Kidney associated antigen 1 (KAAG1) was originally cloned from a cDNA library derived from a histocompatibility leukocyte antigen-B7 renal carcinoma cell line as an antigenic peptide presented to cytotoxic T lymphocytes (Van den Eynde et al., 1999; Genebank accession no. Q9UBP8, SEQ ID NOs.:28; 29). The locus containing KAAG1 was found to encode two genes transcribed on opposite DNA strands. The sense strand was found to encode a transcript that encodes a protein termed DCDC2. Expression studies by these authors found that the KAAG1 antisense transcript was tumor specific and exhibited very little expression in normal tissues whereas the DCDC2 sense transcript was ubiquitously expressed (Van den Eynde et al., 1999). The expression of the KAAG1 transcript in cancer, and in particular ovarian cancer, renal cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer and melanoma was disclosed in the published patent application No. PCT/CA2007/001134 (the entire content of which is incorporated herein by reference). Van den Eynde et al., also observed RNA expression in renal carcinomas, colorectal carcinomas, melanomas, sarcomas, leukemias, brain tumors, thyroid tumors, mammary carcinomas, prostatic carcinomas, oesophageal carcinomas, bladder tumor, lung carcinomas and head and neck tumors. Recently, strong genetic evidence obtained through linkage disequilibrium studies found that the VMP/DCDC2/KAAG1 locus was associated with dyslexia (Schumacher et al., 2006; Cope et al., 2005). One of these reports pointed to the DCDC2 marker as the culprit in dyslexic patients since the function of this protein in cortical neuron migration was in accordance with symptoms of these patients who often display abnormal neuronal migration and maturation (Schumacher et al., 2006).